exhaust levels and fine

[dimmadan]

My mate has just been given a £30 fine purely because in an officers opinion his exhaust is too loud. Is this the law? the officer said because its non standard its illegal. The exhaust is not standard but its not that loud. No reference to dBA levels was mentioned. Any advice would be greatly appreciated...

[Dazren]

Sounds strange to me.

MANU!!!!!!!!

AJAY!!!!!!!!

Is Scuderia systems, purveyors of the worlds finest performance vehicle non-factory exhausts trading in illegal goods?

What is this cop trying to pull. I can't believe a fine can be issued without some from of measurable scientific test other than "it's noisy"

[iguana]

Im sure Madcop will know more than me but im sure the officer would have had to demand a full drive by noise test a la SVA test- if the car had a legal stamp on the exhaust, if it diddnt & assuming it was a modern car rather than a classic the driver can legally be told to remove it and give a 7 day wonder to then have a standard exhaust on the car.

With bike & race exhausts you can buy a small rivit on BS stamp that goes on ya illegal race exhaust, im sure you could do this with a car system too

[bobthebench]

No set level for noise. Construction and Use regs will apply. If you request a hearing, all go to court and argue it there. Might be worth it to hear the cop's reply to show me how loud it was.

Meantime your mate should check it is approved and/or get a garage to test it, that way he has got an expert witness for court.

[dimmadan]

well heres his story, there a scanned piccie of the ticket there somewhere I think
www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/thread.asp?threadid=142782

[135sport]

I read the story, and all the posts and it still puzzles me.......

Did the policeman take any measurements of size and shape?, take any pictures?, note down any identification marks?, etc?

How can he know from just hearing it that it is not a factory approved copy / aftermarket? How can he know what gauge metal is used? What the construction of the cannisters is? He would need all this and more info to know that it is not a factory apporved or copied item.

I would stick the original back on and challenge the ticket.

Not to save the £30, put to show how this law is flawed.

Fine, they want to clamp down on loud cars (exhaust and stereos) but the police have not been furnished with the correct tools and information to enforce this law.

For that policeman to make that call, his ears would need to be calibrated and he would have to store every vehicle's exhaust details in his head!

[DavidP]

As bobthebench says, it seems that there is an amendment to the Construction and Use regs that cover this. I haven't time now to research properly, but I found this, which references the EU Directive (or however it is being sneaked into our statute )

www.carsource.co.uk/miniprod.htm?ID=null says:
The EC directive on pass-by noise (92/97/EEC) that all post-October 1996 registered cars must meet, demands a maximum of 74dB(A) measured by a special test procedure. Since the previous limit was 77dB(A), this may not seem a big reduction, but because decibels are plotted on a logarithmic scale, it actually represents a halving of the noise level. Reductions of up to 3dB(A) in the critical 3250-3500 rpm range mean that motorway cruising at the legal speed limit is twice as quiet!

Cerbera 4.5 JP exhaust.......oooooh sh1t

[superlightr]

I would ask for a copy of what evidence they indend to rely upon.

Ask if his ears were calibrated at the start of the day and for the certificate.:

[rsnissan]

Hello all Its actually my car in question I have posted more information about what Essex Constabulary have said since and all the most up to date information on this bizarre incident.

any help would be greatly appreciated as I am very confused as to where i stand and weather I should contest or not.

Thanks

Andy


www.japmobiles.com/gtir/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1739

[kevinday]

I think the Colchester Police have been telling you a load of cobblers. Ask them which law it is and ask to see the written words. English Law deems innocence until proven guilty (except in the case of speeding). Proving guilt requires just that 'absolute proof'. I know of no such law in the first place and secondly proof would require dB readings to substantiate the 'louder' bit. The opinion of a police constable is just that, an opinion. However he can give you a rectification ticket if there is a fault. IMHO you should take this all the way. I suspect that they will give up.

Madcop/Relax/JR may be able to throw more light on this.

[mondeoman]

I'd contest it - drive by factory noise tests are incredibly strict: speedo's have to be calibrated, noise meter's calibrated, background noise taken into account, tyre noise allowed for etc...... And at 30 mph (assuming you WEREN'T canning it) then he's talking out of his arse if he can differentiate between factory level and non-factory level.

Even with his opinion (gotta be challengable under Freedom of rights or some such, else he could issue every car over 3 years old with a ticket) is right, make them jump thru the hoops to get the money out of you. You've got, wot, 28 days to pay - start writing letters to them straight away demanding to know on what pretext etc.... get it in writing from them, then if you feel that you can't win, pay at the end of the period. Til then, waste the twatters time with paperwork etc...

[rsnissan]

I wanna contest it just on principal I am not bothered about a £30 fine as such (wouldnt even get me 150 miles in that thing) But with all the information I have been given it would seem that I am in a no win situation. If you have read all the information the post it would appear taht they have all their bases covered..............I cant help but think this law is seriously flawed BUT i have got all this information from the horses mouth so to speek..............

What to do????????????

Andy

[craigalsop]

rsnissan said:
What to do????????????

Andy

Hi Andy, there are some serving policemen who tend to post here on matters like this - I would wait for one of them to answer.
(madcop, relaxitscool & John Robson)

[madcop]

superlightr said: I would ask for a copy of what evidence they indend to rely upon.

Ask if his ears were calibrated at the start of the day and for the certificate.:

This isn't necessary.

Reg 97 Construction and Use 1986

No motor vehicle shall be used on a road in such a manner as to cause any excesive noise which could have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable care by the driver

Therefore Questions go like this

Q "Is that a standard recommended fitted exhaust for that vehicle?"

A "No I have modified it to a sports exhaust so that I can announce my appearance to all those lesser motorists that bit earlier"

Q "so the standard exhaust is designed to throw out less decibels then sir?"

A "Errrrrrr.........."

" That will do nicely sir, 28 days to settle the account and don't forget to take this form with the vehicle when you have got the proper one put on within the next 14 days, so the MOT tester can stamp it."

It is a simple question of whether the vehicle was used when excess noise could have been avoided.
However this will be for the court to decide. All the officer did was to inform the offender in his opinion, that this offence may have been committed. The answer would be to let the magistrates hear it to decide.


Reg 54 and 57 of Con and Use Regs 1986

Regulate the fitting and use of silencers (including the attempts of some to increase the noise from the exhaust, so whether excessive noise or incorrect exhaust system, I am afraid the driver is looking at paying up the £30 or asking for an audience with the beak!

[aww999]

The only silencer or other restriction in my exhaust system is the turbo. I tend to dip the clutch if I see a policeman, but have had to rumble past a few exercising caution and never had a problem. The huge flameout backfires when entering a roundabout hard on the brakes might attract some attention, but I've been lucky so far!

(For anyone that's interested, my mate has a car stereo shop, his db meter said 114db at idle, and 128-130db peak depending on how much it was poping and banging).

[madcop]

mondeoman said: I'd contest it - drive by factory noise tests are incredibly strict: speedo's have to be calibrated, noise meter's calibrated, background noise taken into account, tyre noise allowed for etc...... And at 30 mph (assuming you WEREN'T canning it) then he's talking out of his arse if he can differentiate between factory level and non-factory level.

Even with his opinion (gotta be challengable under Freedom of rights or some such, else he could issue every car over 3 years old with a ticket) is right, make them jump thru the hoops to get the money out of you. You've got, wot, 28 days to pay - start writing letters to them straight away demanding to know on what pretext etc.... get it in writing from them, then if you feel that you can't win, pay at the end of the period. Til then, waste the twatters time with paperwork etc...

Mondeoman,

I respect your constant don't let them get the better of you type attitude in some cases, but you have to be reasonable with it as well. There is no requirement to measure noise exactly. It is just an opinion that counts.

The officer had the opinion that it was too loud. That is all that is required. The ultimate test will be with the magistrates.

No doubt the owner of the exhaust will know if he is honest with himself that he could have reasonably reduced the noise by having the correct exhaust fitted.

The choice lies with the accused as with any offence that the Police deal with. The Police do not dispense justice as I have quoted before (except occasionally at the rear of a night club out of sight of the CCTV camera )

The mandate of the police is to gather facts called evidence, put it all in a buff folder and send it to the CPS and ultimately the court who decide on points of law and punishment. To cut down on the time and expense of this procedure, Fixed penalty systems were devised. The choice lies ultimately with the accused!

The Police are nothing more than the messenger. If their opinion is wrong, then generally the accused will be acquitted.

AND


All the time you are wasting the twatters time, it is time that they cannot devote to, as you might say, dealing with 'proper crime'!



>> Edited by madcop on Tuesday 22 October 17:01

[rsnissan]

madcop

Thanks for the reply. I work mate is a special constable and showed me that legislation also but was not sure if was the legislation that was used to against my case.

looks like I will have to pay the fine. I am not going to disput my exhaust is loud and the original Jap system (conforms to JASMA)like on most jap imports is quieter. I just didnt realise there was a fixed penalty/law against it.

Its ironic really.............I was fully aware I had a copper glued to my rear bumper and was being cautious with the noise. I think the copper would have had a Hernia if he had heard it at full chat it pops, bangs and flames for England. Much like when they used to rally them.

cheers for the input guys

Andy

[mondeoman]

madcop said: The Police do not dispense justice as I have quoted before (except occasionally at the rear of a night club out of sight of the CCTV camera )

Please sir don't hit me sir - I's only an innocent sir, honest sir! ouch!

Fair comments Madcop - I'll do me best to modify my approach (yeah right!) Having read the associated threads, I find it slightly unjust that an opinion is all that is needed to have a motorist relieved of £30. No matter what happens after the event, if it goes to court then we all know that in cases where no FACTS are required (such as this), then the police's word will be believed, over that of (what could well be) an innocent party.

The law (?) states "reasonable care" - which is why I put in my original post

provided you weren't canning it

which, with a non-factory exhaust fitted, would be asking for trouble.

I still think the apporach taken here is ever so slightly over-zealous tho. All IMHO

[madcop]

I find it slightly unjust that an opinion is all that is needed to have a motorist relieved of £30. No matter what happens after the event, if it goes to court then we all know that in cases where no FACTS are required (such as this), then the police's word will be believed, over that of (what could well be) an innocent party.

Despite what you think, the days of magistrates taking Police evidence for granted is long over (Thanks to the West Midlands Crime Squad). The accused always has the option in a case like this, of taking the offence before the magistrates and letting them make their own minds up. My point is that Poice oficers have to make judgements about offences by using opinion. How else would they do it otherwise? That is just the first step in the process. From the point where a Police Officer aims a lazer gun at a car travelling towards him, he does so as in his opinion it is exceeding the limit. The reading corroborates that.
When he sees a person climbing out of an office window at 3 a.m. with a laptop under his arm, in the Police officers opinion, the person is a burglar?

The law (?) states "reasonable care" - which is why I put in my original post

provided you weren't canning it

which, with a non-factory exhaust fitted, would be asking for trouble.

I still think the apporach taken here is ever so slightly over-zealous tho. All IMHO

Reasonable care would be to not put on a non standard exhaust which was too loud. Not the fact that the driver managed to idle past the officer and become unoticed.

Over zealous or not, the option is there for the offence to be dealt with by FPT. I would have agreed on the officer being over zealous if he had reported the accused person and then gone down the buff folder line. That would have been sledge hammer/nut syndrome.
To have Magistrates deal with a case like this which is bought before them without FPT procedure would usually attract a fine far in excess of the £30 FPT and possibly costs as well.

There are a huge number of offences which can be dealt with by FPT procedures (either endorsable or non endorsable) It is not over zealous of a Police officer to consider issuing one of these if it saves time and money for everyone concerned. Unless of course you are advocating that the Police should not deal with such trivial matters where motorists are concerned at all

[rsnissan]

I think this is an unfair approach. I basically means that the police can say your car is too loud with any system that is louder than standard (no matter how by how much) IF they wanted to. In court all it would boil down to is;

"is the system standard"

NO

"is it louder" (irrelevant of how much by)

YES

"did the officer think it was too loud"

YES

and your fu*ked


Ultimately a 1986 Montego 1.6 driven by an OAP with a cheep third party silencer that is not as effective as the Austin Rover original could be done.

Andy


>> Edited by rsnissan on Wednesday 23 October 10:34